Gryffydd
Member
I thought the reason for titanium was strength per unit of weight.
10mm or .41 magnum in L frame.
- Thread starter LawofThirds
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a metallurgist either, so I'm going on the word of one of the top ICORE pistolsmiths in the country.
When he sets up a 627 for competition, weight is a consideration as the Ti cylinder's lessor mass is easier to start and stop. But the reason he replaces the stainless cylinder with a Ti one is for the wear quality. the stainless cylinder is softer the the Ti and the bolt notches will peen when the gun is run at competition speeds...the coating the S&W applies to the Ti cylinder also helps
Grey Morel
Member
WC - As much as I love S&W, I think your KIDDING yourself if you think practicality is their primary priority. It's not.
S&W still uses scandium to alloy with their aluminum frames... despite the fact that it doesn't exist in metallic form anywhere in nature... despite the fact that its only produced as a by-product in TWO foreign mines worldwide... despite the fact that various titanium/aluminum alloys have been shown to provide the same properties at lower cost.
But they do it for a reason. 'Scandium' sounds exotic and exciting. These days, even Taurus uses Titanium - its passe' - but scandium justifies $900 for a snubby... And we are willing to pay.
This mentality carries over into their other designs as well.
S&W still uses scandium to alloy with their aluminum frames... despite the fact that it doesn't exist in metallic form anywhere in nature... despite the fact that its only produced as a by-product in TWO foreign mines worldwide... despite the fact that various titanium/aluminum alloys have been shown to provide the same properties at lower cost.
But they do it for a reason. 'Scandium' sounds exotic and exciting. These days, even Taurus uses Titanium - its passe' - but scandium justifies $900 for a snubby... And we are willing to pay.
This mentality carries over into their other designs as well.
NoAlibi
Member
As a firearm and reloading enthusiast your supposition certainly makes sense to me.
As a retired homicide investigator in a very large city, admittedly this can be anecdotal information rather than a microcosmic study, the opposite seemed to be the rule in the case of .357Mag & .44Mag.
If I were to hazard a guess it would be that the development of people stopping bullets received a great deal more attention in the more popular .357Mag. Probaly even more so in .357Mag vs .41Mag.
Grey Morel
Member
What are you saying here? No matter how many times I re-read it, I cant discern your intended message.
bsms
Member
Could it be most 41 mag bullets are designed for deeper penetration against bigger game, and thus don't open up and create as large a wound channel as do 357s? Ammo isn't just about power, but how that power is delivered. In my 44 Alaskan, I use lighter bullets or hot 44 specials for self defense. The 300 grain bullets have more power, but I suspect their design is to travel deep for angled shots against deer or even elk.
Gryffydd
Member
It could be if it were ALL .41 mag bullets. But there are plenty of good defense bullets for the .41, from Gold Dots to Silver Tips to XTPs. If someone chooses to use ill suited bullets the problem is them, not the cartridge.
NoAlibi
Member
Grey Morel - It might help you to understand if you followed the progression of the thought in it’s entirety.
First Gryffydd questioned Confederate’s statement, “The .41 mag, in my view, doesn't have the stopping power that the .357 does, plus it has greater recoil and penetration (which is why it's not as good a manstopper).” by posing this question, “I'm not sure I read this right, because it sounds like you're saying that the .41 Magnum has less stopping power because it's much more powerful.”
My response to Gryffydd's statement was to first agree with him [ “As a firearm and reloading enthusiast your supposition certainly makes sense to me”. ]
Then my experience indicated, possibly anecdotally, that the opposite may be true that the 357Mag may have been more of a manstopper than the .41Mag for other than the basic laws of kinetic energy involved; i.e., possibly bullet design in the homicide cases involving those bullets.
There may be better man stopping bullets in .41Mag & .44Mag now, but they were questionable in those cases during my tenure in the police department from 1971 to 1983.
First Gryffydd questioned Confederate’s statement, “The .41 mag, in my view, doesn't have the stopping power that the .357 does, plus it has greater recoil and penetration (which is why it's not as good a manstopper).” by posing this question, “I'm not sure I read this right, because it sounds like you're saying that the .41 Magnum has less stopping power because it's much more powerful.”
My response to Gryffydd's statement was to first agree with him [ “As a firearm and reloading enthusiast your supposition certainly makes sense to me”. ]
Then my experience indicated, possibly anecdotally, that the opposite may be true that the 357Mag may have been more of a manstopper than the .41Mag for other than the basic laws of kinetic energy involved; i.e., possibly bullet design in the homicide cases involving those bullets.
There may be better man stopping bullets in .41Mag & .44Mag now, but they were questionable in those cases during my tenure in the police department from 1971 to 1983.
Last edited:
- Status
